sf says...

"OMG, our beloved Emperor is gone! (sorta') But don't worry: the Democrats are fanning the flames of crazy, so it's just a matter of time before they run things again."

Tuesday, November 30

Austria: Man fined $1000 when his yodelling annoys Muslims

For your enlightenment:

(Austrian Times)- An Austrian has been fined for yodelling while mowing his lawn, according to a report.

The Kronen Zeitung newspaper claims Helmut G. was told by a court in Graz, Styria, that his yodelling offended his next-door Muslim neighbours.

The men reportedly accused the 63-year-old of mocking and imitating the call of the Muezzin. The daily paper writes the Austrian was fined 800 Euros after judges ruled he could have tried to offend them and ridicule their belief. The Muslims, whose nationalities were not revealed by the report, were in the middle of a prayer when the Austrian started to yodel.

“It was not my intention to imitate or insult them. I simply started to yodel a few tunes because I was in such a good mood” the man said.

If your first reaction to this story was "Well sure, those Euro-weenies are PC enough to do just that, but it could never happen here!" think again, because the exact same thing is coming to America.

Thursday, November 25

Confrontation with North Korea

Quick review of recent events in Korea:

1. Around 5 days ago North Korea fired about 200 rounds of artillery at a small island that's home to about 1,300 South Koreans. The shells killed two SK troops and two civilians, and destroyed around 60 homes.

2. The Norks claim they fired after South Korean guns on the island fired dozens of shells into Nork ocean waters as part of a military exercise. They claim to have warned the South of grave consequences if this happened again.

3. Video smuggled out of North Korea features lots of NK citizens talking about nearing the end of their tolerance for the current situation--lots of Northerners starving to death, lots of suicides.

4. NK dictator Kim Jong Il--who inherited the position from his father, Kim Il Sung--is reportedly in poor health and is trying to ensure that his youngest son will take over as dictator. But the son has virtually no experience or credibility.

5. The U.S. Navy had scheduled a regular naval exercise in the narrow Yellow Sea between Korea and China. A large U.S. aircraft carrier, the George Washington, was slated to be part of that exercise, but after China made a strong, threatening statement the GW was removed from the lineup. No reason was given.

6. Now the Navy has announced that the carrier will participate in the exercise after all.

I hope I'm wrong, but this situation worries me. A lot. Specifically, I'm concerned that China will use this to assert ownership of the Yellow Sea, by giving the North the green light to fire torpedoes or missiles at the GW.

Now, there's no way to prevent crazy bastards from doing something crazy militarily. Hell, the Norks captured the USS Pueblo and crew and all the U.S. government did was wring its hands and write letters. They're aggressive and seemingly unrestrained by the possibility of retaliation.

And the reasons are clear: They're protected by China. And they're pretty sure the memory of the Korean War is fresh enough to Americans that we'll always wring our hands and whine rather than turning their capital into glowing glass.

So I suspect that if the Chinese were to hint to the Norks that they'd be pleased if..., the Norks would be only too happy to give it a try.

And if (heaven forbid) a warhead were to get through, about half of all (nominal) Americans would agree that it was indeed our fault, and that U.S. forces should never sail closer than, oh, 400 miles or so from either China or North Korea.

So--if you're religious, pray that the exercise winds up without loss of life. And pray that the U.S. can somehow be lucky enough to make it to January of 2013 and a new president who will reassert that anyone who attacks our ships in international waters will quickly end up dead.

Postscript: Want a great example of how thoroughly Wikipedia covers for communist states? Here's what they said about the South Korean ship that was torpedoed by the North: "On 26 March 2010, it broke in two and sank... like, just spontaneously. They do say later in the article that a panel of experts concluded that the cause was a torpedo, but the image has already been sent to the brain of gullible readers that the vessel spontaneously broke in two--'cuz everyone knows that this kind of thing just, y'know, happens to ships.

Wednesday, November 24

Leftist think-tank recommends a way around GOP

The wonderfully (mis)named "Center for American Progress" is a left-wing think-tank run by Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. For a couple of weeks I'd heard that the Center had published a report urging Obama to use Executive Orders to accomplish anything that the Dems didn't have the votes to get through Congress.

I think it's significant that this is the actual title the Center gave to their own webpage. (The title of the report itself--the one printed on the report's title page--is "The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change") So to the extent one names files by their main point, the thrust of this recommendation as they see it is indeed about issuing executive orders. But to do what?

Here's the introduction, written by the former Clinton chief of staff:

In the aftermath of this month’s midterm congressional elections, pundits...are focusing on how difficult it will be for...Obama to advance his [policies] through Congress. Predictions of stalemate abound. And some debate whether the administration should tack to the left or...compromise with...the new House leadership.

As a former White House chief of staff I believe those to be the wrong preoccupations. [The pResident’s] ability to govern the country...presents an opportunity to demonstrate strength, resolve, and a capacity to get things done on a host of pressing challenges...to the public and our economy. Progress, not positioning, is what the public wants and deserves.

So it seems Clinton's former chief of staff--and his leftist organization--believes Obama shouldn't back off any goals just because the Dems got clobbered in the recent election. Guess that's what he means by "an opportunity to demonstrate strength."

Cool! I mean, why should Leftists care about 'elections' and 'majorities'? To Democrats and leftists those are just meaningless words to con the masses into continuing to submit to socialist policies without taking up pitchforks and rifles.

Amazing how getting shellacked in the mid-terms and losing their super-majority control of the House has changed their tune about elections, eh?

So what does this gang of anti-democracy types recommend? Here's their own language again:

The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy. These authorities can be used to ensure positive progress on many of the key issues facing the country through:• Executive orders• Rulemaking• Agency management• Convening and creating public-private partnerships• Commanding the armed forces

There it is again, the top item on the list: Executive orders. And right below that is "rulemaking", which implies having federal agencies make rules or policies that might actually be unConstitutional. Otherwise why would this be mentioned in a report that's presumably suggesting novel or rarely-considered techniques to end-run Congress?

Of course to the 40-some percent of Americans who pay no taxes and vote Dem because the Dems have promised to give them free stuff, this is a "so what?" But I can't help feeling that the people who wrote this report are enemies of freedom and democracy.

I realize there are probably lots of Democrats who believe the Center for American Progress is a bunch of far-left goofs. But if so you'd think at least one or two would stand up and say so.

Of course we're talking about Democrats here, so no one is willing to dissent from the straight party line.

Guess no one wants to risk getting crossed off all the cool invitation lists.

A small feel-good post. And Happy Thanksgiving!

There's a hell of a lot I don't know, but one thing I think I'm proficient with is numbers.

Frankly I'd rather be a good pianist, but here we are. In any case, I chanced on this little snippet of info:

Adjusted for inflation, per capita GDP was 22.8 percent higher in 2000 than it was in 1990.

That almost certainly didn't impress you. After all, economies grow over time. But consider that the U.S. is a "mature economy." While poor nations--with tiny GDPs--can occasionally take off and produce 4 or 5 percent growth rates for a few years, it's extremely hard for a huge, fully mature economy to do that.

For comparison, our population probably grew 1% per year during that decade, or probably around 11% over the whole period. Absent constant improvements and innovation, one would expect the GDP to rise by about this same percent over the same time.

Instead, the growth rate of our economy was double the population growth.

What that shows is that despite all the pessimism and whining, there's still a hellofa lot of productivity improvement and innovation going on in this country.

Happy Thanksgiving to all. I know I'm sure thankful to live here in one of the last oases of peace, prosperity and reasonably sane people on the planet.

Sunday, November 21

Is congress irrecoverably corrupt?

Most congresscritters strike me as reasonably decent people. But a bunch of 'em strike me as thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy. Schumer, Rangel, Raum (he was a congressman before he became Obozo's chief of staff), Pelosi, Reid, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, to name a few. (And yes, some Republicans are on the list.)

I'd guess that the thoroughly bad apples comprise no more than 20 percent of the whole, but obviously that's just a wag.

Problem is, the bad apples seem to always succeed in slipping a dozen multi-million-dollar earmarks or loop-holes into virtually every piece of legislation they pass. They do this mainly by slipping their crappy, self-serving provisions into bills that are considered "must-pass"--as in, if congress doesn't pass it something unacceptably bad will happen.

Thus the majority of good folks are backed into a corner: If they want to keep funding our troops, or keep the gubmint running, or whatever, they have to vote yes on the entire, pork-laden, corrupt, earmark-riddled POS.

And of course, as long as voters in a handful of states keep electing corrupt people to congress, this problem won't be solvable.

Saturday, November 20

"You WILL BE creative!! That's an order!"

There's a passage in a famous book in which the protagonist has been caught by federal agents. After some hours of fruitless threatening, a higher-level bureaucrat walks in. The exchange goes something like this:

Protagonist: "What do you want?"

Bureaucrat: "Why, nothing at all. We just want you to continue doing what you've always done: Work. Invent. Innovate."

P: "And how do you propose that I do that?"

B: "Well of course we know you can't work here. Naturally we'll take you back to your workshop."

P: "And then what do you want me to do?"

B: "I just told you."

P: "No, you told me the outcome you wanted, not how to achieve it. So say I'm back in my workshop. What do you want me to do first?"

B: "How should I know? That's a stupid question. You're the creative guy, not us. You should know what to do to create."

P: "For some reason I can't recall how to do that. I need you to tell me what to do.

B: "This is ridiculous. You're the inventor and innovator, not us. If we knew how to invent things, do you think I'd be wasting my valuable time talking to you?"

P: [says nothing but raises an eyebrow at bureaucrat]

At that point one imagines a lo.o.o.ong moment of "cognitive dissonance" by the bureaucrat as he struggles to reconcile what he's just learned with the world-view he's been taught since the day he entered Hahvahd: He has a degree in political science from a prestigious Ivy school, and all he had to do today was take the helo over to where this peasant was being held and convince him to go back work innovating; back to work, so the government could take half of his earnings and give it to moochers.

Problem is, the peasant has done the unexpected: Although he has agreed to cooperate completely, he wants the bureaucrat to tell him exactly what to do to be innovative, creative.

Of course the bureaucrat hasn't a clue as to how to do this. And the dawning realization is, uh... difficult to reconcile with what his professors and political superiors have always taught.

For the first time in his life it starts to dawn on the bureaucrat--slowly--that ordering someone to be creative--or to start and successfully run a small business--rarely produces the desired result. Instead some mysterious, never-before-identified spark of...something...has to be present in someone to get him to go to the huge trouble and expense of starting his own creative enterprise.

Here endeth the lesson. Let those with ears hear it. For any of you who are bureaucrats or big-gubmint politicians, all we can do is hope you experience this lesson for yourselves, and then hope you get it. No amount of explanation--no matter how skilled or patient--will suffice.

Those who believe big government can run things better than individuals believe pols can simply order people to create, to hire new employees, to innovate.

Let us know if that works for ya.

Those of you who've read the book will recognize the scene. Yes, the author was occasionally tedious and unquestionably had some controversial personal beliefs and views, but got lots of truths across as well.

Friday, November 19

Let's frisk more kids at airports

Most people with common sense can easily see what our gubmint is doing that's crazy or wrong. One is Ann Coulter. Here's what she says about airport security (edited):

After the 9/11 attacks, when Muslim terrorists hijacked four passenger jets by using box-cutters, the government ordered that no one could bring sharp objects on commercial airplanes.

Airport security began confiscating little old ladies' knitting needles and passengers' nail clippers. Surprisingly, no decrease in the number of hijacking attempts by little old ladies and manicurists was noted.

After another Muslim terrorist, Richard Reid, tried to blow up a passenger jet with explosives in his shoes, the government ordered all passengers to remove their shoes at the security checkpoint. It also ordered that no one could take more than three ounces of liquid on airline flights.

Neither action has caught even one terrorist attack.

After a Muslim passenger tried to detonate explosives in his underwear over Detroit last Christmas, the government began requiring nude body scans at airports.

The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, it's highly unlikely that any hijackers will be stopped, but being able to see through a babe's clothes will surely boost the morale of TSA agents.

Last year, a Muslim tried to murder a Saudi Arabian prince by blowing himself up with a bomb stuck up his anus. Fortunately this didn't happen near an airport or Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano would be requiring full body cavity searches of passengers.

You can't stop a terrorist attack by searching for the explosives any more than you can stop crime by taking away everyone's guns.

It's similarly pointless to treat all Americans as if they're potential terrorists while trying to find and confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon.

What you have to search for is...terrorists.

Fortunately that's the one advantage we have in this war: So far virtually all the terrorists have been swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males. This would give us a major leg up, if only our politicians and bureaucrats weren't insane.

If all bombers so far had been Swedish, is there any doubt that we'd be looking for Swedes? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn't we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance?

But because the terrorists are Muslims--screechy, litigious and lawyered up--we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes.

Wednesday, November 17

Latest Dem meme: We only lost due to bad messaging

What follows was lifted from commenter Lee Reynolds at Ace of Spades, who looked at the Left's latest election-loss excuse:

The new meme from the Left is that the Dems' historic election losses were due mostly to a failure of messaging. Nonsense. When the left talks about messaging it just means they couldn't come up with a good enough lie to fool everyone for a prolonged period.

For the most part Leftists are bad people with bad ideas. Everyplace leftist ideas have been put into practice, the results have been social and economic disasters of biblical proportions. Every time. Every single time.

It's been said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. I call it weapons-grade stupidity. Leftists don't seem to learn from experience. Unless they do, the most that we can hope for is that normal people will come to understand who and what they are so that their influence can be reduced or nullified.

Everyone knows to avoid the wild-eyed, unwashed man stumbling down the sidewalk talking to people who aren't there. We know to disregard what he says. When the average person comes to treat leftists and their policies the same way, the world will be a much better place.

Monday, November 15

Someone keeps introducing this ghastly bill

Ever been curious to know how union bosses use their friends in congress (spit) to rape you? Then read this bill. It's S. 3194, introduced by...actually I'll wait a minute and see if you can predict which of those corrupt bastards had the unmitigated gall--and power--to introduce this piece of work.

This bill is an exact copy of S. 1611, introduced in August of 2009, and virtually a copy of HR 413, introduced in the House with 227 co-sponsors, including at least a dozen RINOs. From this it would appear that the bill would pass easily and wouldn't need any type of reconciliation.

The stated purpose of the bill is "To provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions."

Hmmm..."collective bargaining rights for public-safety officers". Gee, that sounds sorta familiar, doesn't it? In fact it sounds like union representation. We'll know for sure when we see what the bill's author decided to name it: If it's a totally misleading name, like "Freedom and security for all children" you know it's a con job.

Sure enough, the author called it the ‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009’. (Even though it was introduced on April 13th of 2010--barely a month after congress passed that other incredibly popular law called "National Health Care."

The key phrase there is "Employer-Employee Cooperation Act." Recall that the author of this piece of crap has every intention of it becoming law. Which means if anyone in the U.S. violates a single one of its provisions, the power of the federal government will come down on him/her/it like a thousand furies. But of course the actual title has the word "cooperation" in it, so there's not a hint that there any, um...coercion, force, fines, shitstorms et cetera might be involved.

No sir.

Continuing: Right after the title is a "Declaration of purpose and policy," the first 'graf of which declares that "it is the union that provides the institutional stability as elected leaders and appointees come and go."

But according to its defenders, this isn't at all alaw to forcibly unionize all cops and firefighters in the country.

No sirree.

Ah the hell with it. The author was none other than the senate's majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid. (The original in 2009 was introduced by Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, with 26 cosponsors.) Reid's bill doesn't have any co-sponsors, but I don't know if this is significant.

It may also be significant that bills with exactly the same title have been introduced every year for the last 13 years. All but the last two are shown as "dead," and while this is somewhat reassuring, the hugely alarming aspect is that whoever is pushing these bills is both determined and has enough clout to keep getting it introduced every year. This is really frightening, because it suggests that if the folks keeping it from passing get distracted even once, it's gonna pass.

"The healthcare numbers don't work." "So??"

What does the new Obamacare law allow? Someone ping Nancy and ask her to interpret its 2,100 pages, with new precedents of waivers and exclusions, and find out. That is, if she ever got around to reading the bill she twisted so many arms to pass.

The numbers for Obamacare simply don’t work-- at all, for anyone.

This is the age of form over substance, of numbers that don’t work and no one seems to notice. Take the mortgage meltdown: Even the rocket scientists were just dead wrong. PhD's notwithstanding, eventually arithmetic always wins.

But I believe it’s a distinctive cultural trait right now. It is rampant where I work at Megabank, empty suits yapping away without making a lick of sense. If you want to know where the mortgage meltdown came from, I can give you a list of names that were certainly contributory, small hands moving events under the command of the wise … wise guys.

And where is our watchdog press? They're no more interested in whether the numbers work than anybody else. You might think even a partisan press might try to read the bill, find some competent high school students to add up the numbers, and point out to their democraptic friends, “uh, these numbers here …” But no, the political class doesn’t do math-- that’s for peons, worker bees, anyone who cannot possibly have any effect on policy.

Saturday, November 13

Three state questions passed-- three lawsuits to overturn.

A nation in which the "rule of law" is supreme is a good thing, they say.

They say that because it's a hell of a lot less painful to decide things by voting than it is to decide them by the time-honored method of bullets and bayonets.

But what happens if laws duly-passed by either legislatures or by the people (via referenda, or state questions) are overturned by activist, agenda-driven judges?

Last week voters in my backwater state in flyover country passed three "state questions"-- a way for the people to pass laws that power-hungry legislators refuse to pass, either because big money would bribe them not to, or because they fear losing votes from special-interest groups.

The first question barred state courts from considering international law--specifically including Sharia (Islamic) law--in cases before them.

It passed by 75-25.

The day after it passed, a group filed suit to have the measure nullified.

The second question specified that the official language of the state would be English, and that the state could not use taxpayer funds to conduct official business in any other language. In other words, the state couldn't be forced to print ballots or applications in Spanish or Laotian or Hmong or whatever.

Now a law professor has filed suit to overturn this result as well.

Of particular note is the grounds for his suit: He claims the measure would infringe on the free-speech rights of state employees by barring them from speaking a foreign language.

Yeah, I can't believe it either. And I haven't read the actual filing; this comes from the local paper, so I take it with a grain of salt.

The third state question said that everyone wanting to vote must show identification.

Like the other two, this logical, reasonable measure to reduce vote fraud passed by almost 75-25.

And now the same prof who sued to overturn the second question says he plans to file suit to overturn this question as well.

Now, I'm well aware that under our marvelous Constitution people can't be deprived of their actual Constitutional rights by a majority vote. But I honestly can't see where any of these state questions would do that. That is, I don't see where people have a right to vote without proving that they are who they claim to be, or where people who can't speak English have a right to force the state to deal with them in their language.

And I certainly do not see how requiring the courts to consider only U.S. laws deprives anyone of any of their Constitutional rights.

And of course it's always possible that a reasonable judge will side with the voters on these questions.

Of course if that were to happen you absolutely know what will happen next: the plaintiff-- backed by money from pro-illegal groups-- will appeal. And again if necessary, until he finally finds a judge who agrees with his position. Meanwhile the state will be spending a paltry half-million bucks or so to defend the will of a bunch of voters, and the clamor will rise that we have far better ways to use such money--like, "for da chiiiiiilllldren." So the state will be inclined to concede the case rather than fight.

Happens every time.

And of course the voters never learn. Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football year after year, Lucy always snatches it away at the last second, but the poor dumb schmuck keeps falling for her promises.

Hate to say it, but this will come down to bullets. I suggest it would be far better to honor the rule of law now and throw out these frivolous lawsuits rather than risk civil war.

But if the courts somehow find new, heretofore unseen "rights" to overturn these questions, I suggest it's better to take up arms sooner rather than later.

Wednesday, November 10

"Quantitative Easing" mean anything to ya?

The day after the election, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke quietly approved a second round of a fiscal gimmick called "Quantitative Easing." Us flyover-country folks would probably call it what it really is: printing a trillion dollars of new cash.

The Fed's doing QE--astonishingly uninformative euphemism, eh?--to pump more money into the U.S. government.

A lot more money.

It's doing that because our huge new deficits have caused the normal buyers of U.S. government debt to stop doing that. In effect, they've closed the bank window on the government.

Without a constant flow of cash, the government can't cover the checks it writes to its employees.

Fortunately Social Security and unemployment benefits are paid from a separate, magic account that's replenished by solar power, so those will continue to be paid as usual.

Ah. Disregard that last. Seems Congress has been raiding the Social Security fund for decades to fund its pork, so that fund is completely dependent on current contributions to cover its checks.

Faced with its own insolvency, the govt had about three choices: cut spending in other areas, raise taxes, or...simply print the money it needed. It chose option 3.

If you're a student of history you may recall that another country's government tried this in the 1920's. The result was a thing called "hyperinflation" that utterly destroyed all savings and impoverished the middle class. (Try Googling "Weimar Republic or "hyperinflation.")

Saturday, November 6

NYT: "Only reason we lost was poor communication"

It's always nausea-inducing to read any blog written by a writer for the NY Times. I don't knowingly read any of 'em, but occasionally an unnamed link takes me there inadvertently.

That just now happened, and now I have the urge to take a really hot shower--with bleach.

Honestly, I don't know how these people can have been raised in the same country I was. And to make matters worse, these wackos actually think they're enlightened and have a special skill that allows them to see through the surface trappings to the real nature of American life and power. They think that those of us in flyover country are all ignorant, jingoistic rubes who hate foreigners and vegetables.

The article I had the misfortune of reading was a post-election analysis. The author claimed the only reason the Dems lost was because the Tea Party--actually owned and financed by Big Business, of course--lied about the problems brought on by Obama and the Dems, and Obama didn't try to counter these alleged lies and show the ignorant unwashed voters how wonderful his policies actually were.

In other words, if you voted Republican or conservative or Tea Party, you're dumb and easily fooled by pretty lies. Got that?

The article was bad enough, but the comments were even worse. A sample:

Let's not save capitalism. Its self-destructive nature should doom it to the ash can of history along with feudalism and slavery.

A Canadian wrote:

The blame is on the ignorance of the u.s. electorate. Information is there in plain view about what happened; whether it's about bailouts, the stock market, no WMDs in iraq (a fact which seemed to be known in every democracy but the u.s.a.) and on and on. however, if ignorance is bliss, americans have to the be the happiest uninformed citizens on the face of the earth.

And here most of us on the right thought our team was about reducing nutty regulations, cutting taxes and red-tape for businesses, encouraging job creation by encouraging new startup companies, cutting public-sector salaries and pensions back to levels in the private-sector and so on.

I won't ruin your Sunday by quoting any more of this crap. Frankly it makes me want to buy more weapons of higher caliber, and double the ammo stock.

If you have to do your own research here's the link, but don't complain to me if you click and it ruins your day. You've been warned.

Dem talking point: "OMG, it's GRIDLOCK!"

After last Tuesday the new Dem talking point is "Gridlock approaches! We’ve had two years of gridlock thanks to the party of NO"!!

Apparently the Dems think everyone in the country is as ignorant as their own voters are, because it takes very little memory to realize that for the past four years the Dems have had a bulletproof majority in both houses of congress, and obviously for the last two they've also had president Zero. For the last two years the Dems shut the GOP out of any part of legislating, essentially telling the Repubs to pound sand.

So this "party of NO" crap is just that: a cutesy phrase coined by some strategist to shift blame to the GOP. Again, the GOP hasn't had the votes to defeat *anything* in the last four years. If there's any legislation you Dems haven't passed, it's the fault of your own party.

The new, improved Constitution--as rewritten by Dems

I was browsing through old posts and found this, written last August. Fortunately the election results have postponed the re-writing of our amazing Constutution by the so-called "progressives" and Democrats.

Of course that doesn't mean they've stopped trying!

In any case, in light of the election results I've reposted it below.

"The new Constitution of the United States of America (as re-written by liberal Democrats and 'progressives'")"

I. Every person in the United States, regardless of national origin or citizenship, has the right to an equal share of the nation's wealth.

II. You are entitled to this share even if you choose not to work--because to deny anyone this right based on his or her lifestyle choices wouldn't be fair, and fairness is very important to us Democrats.

III. This Constitution is a "living document." This means that like all living things, its meaning is always changing. Change is good. Why would anyone want to be tied to the stodgy, fixed ideas of White males who died 200 years ago? We Dems are really big on Change.

IV. Because it's always changing, the actual legal effect of this Constitution at any given time can't be determined from the words it contains--since those are obviously fixed. Instead, the meaning at any given time will be determined by Congress, and Democrat-appointed judges.

V. All citizens are encouraged to work and pay their taxes. Of course wealthier citizens will be required to pay a much higher percentage of their income than people who don't work, or who work just enough to get by. This policy is fair because all wealth is amassed through theft. Plus it's simply not fair that some people choose to work harder than others. Democrats are really committed to the idea of fairness.

VI. As long as you keep voting for Democratic control of Congress, we'll continue to cut taxes for the poorest 80% of Americans. If you already don't pay any federal income tax you'll get a big fat check. To pay for both these things we'll raise taxes on the rich, since they're only rich because they're white and had rich parents. Remember, Democrats are all about fairness.

VII. Everyone knows that war is bad. As we Democrats always say, war is never the answer to anything. So in order to reduce war in the world, we hereby promise that the U.S. will never again go to war. Accordingly, why in the world would we need a huge military? So we will cut the Pentagon's budget by ten percent every year, and use the savings to create more federal jobs.

VIII. Capitalism is bad. Corporations are beyond bad--in fact we'd call corporations evil except Progressives aren't really comfortable with this whole notion of "good and evil." Accordingly, we will make every effort to strip corporations of any legal rights. When we're done with 'em, the only thing a corporation will be able to do is pay taxes. And create well-paying, dignified jobs for every American who wants one.

IX. All sexes are now equal, in every respect. Because the terms "miss" and "ma'am" carry an implication of a woman's marital status and are therefore potentially offensive to women, from now on those terms shall be illegal. Instead all people will be addressed simply as "citizen." This will also end the hurtful practice in some states of calling dislocated travellers who may not have all their documentation "illegal immigrants."

X. All rights not explicitly granted to the states or to the People in this document are reserved to the Federal government.

XI. A well-regulated Army now being unnecessary, and guns being responsible for the death of so many innocent people, the possession of firearms by anyone except bona fide law enforcement officers or government agents is prohibited.

XII. Everyone knows that totally free speech can often be hurtful. This is particularly true in political races. Accordingly, all advertisements, bumper stickers, editorials, blog posts and "other communications, whether print or electronic" must be approved by the Federal Election Committee before publication or dissemination. Republicans or conservatives submitting any of these forms of political speech for approval are advised to allow at least six months for the Committee to approve or disapprove your submission. So plan accordingly.

XIII. All members of Congress are hereby exempted from compliance with any law passed by Congress. (We've been running that way for decades anyway, but were starting to hear some complaints, so we thought we'd put it right in the Constitution.)

Thursday, November 4

Why do Dems hate business?

Of course they talk constantly about the importance of jobs to the economy, but their actions show that they really don't give a damn about business. To progs and socialists the only useful function of a business is to provide jobs for Democrat voters.

Moreover, socialists seem to believe that all they have to do is order businesses to hire people and it'll be done. After all, that's what happens in every other area of government: the rulers make the laws and regulations and everyone must obey or face huge fines or possibly jail time.

Most pols don't understand that businesses don't exist to provide jobs or generate tax revenue for them to spend. They certainly do those things, of course, but only incidentally to their main function.

Because Americans have always lived with freedom and free enterprise, most of us don't see what a boon it is to have hundreds of thousands of small businesses that fulfill virtually every possible consumer need or desire. And of course Hollywood has made eeevil businessmen the villain in countless movies and television shows for decades. Thus roughly half of Americans seem to be fairly hostile to business.

I doubt that Dems/socialists/"progressives" (what a beautiful piece of misleading naming that last one is!) will ever abandon their animosity to business and free enterprise, but with luck a few more elections like last Tuesday's may make that irrelevant.

Dem revisionist history, episode 84

Dictators and thugs often try to re-write history to make themselves look better. They count on people not having a sharp memory of events that happened more than a couple of years ago. And it usually works.

On the day after Republicans reclaimed control of Congress, a Democratic lawmaker said he will introduce a measure that would "disavow" the impeachment of former President Clinton.

Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) said that the resolution is necessary so that Democrats and Republicans can work together in a bipartisan fashion.

The last time they were in power House Republicans impeached Clinton for allegedly perjuring himself over his supposed affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, only the second president in history to be impeached, was eventually acquitted at trial in the Senate.

Did you catch the revision of history? First the writer implies that Clinton's proven perjury didn't actually occur but was merely "alleged." Second, he (she?) states that Clinton was "acquitted" by the Senate trial. Any normal meaning of the word would suggest that the senate "jury" found that Clinton didn't commit perjury. In fact the senators made no such finding.

It should be an eternal shame to the Dems that they voted to let Clinton remain in office despite finding that he had in fact lied in sworn testimony in a legal case--which is perjury, and a felony.

That piece of political whoredom--Senate Democrats voting to put their party's power above the law--hugely damaged the idea that all are equal under our laws, as it proved what most people suspected: that powerful people are effectively above the law--that laws that apply to "ordinary" Americans don't apply to them.

I have no problem with sexual fun between consenting parties. But I hate it when partisan journo-whores try to rewrite history to whitewash the errors their party made in the past--not the dalliance but the totally partisan vote to retain a perjuring president in office.

Oh, and for the record, I find the sudden post-election interest in bipartisanship...predictable and amusing.

About Me

Ex-AF pilot. While airliners are very safe, flying a single-pilot jet can be extremely demanding, especially in bad weather. It's a *huge* tribute to engineers that today's commercial jetliners are so amazingly safe!